Middle East conflict

[WCSox]

Given that the Israeli bombings have targeted the Lebanese army just as much as they've targeted Hezbollah, this is simply not going to happen. Not a chance in Hell. You want someone other than the Israelis to work to dismantle Hezbollah, your ONLY option is going to be some sort of international force. There's just no one else.

 

Remember this simple fact; bombing people does not make them like you. Israeli jets bombing the Hell out of Lebanon don't make the Lebanese army go "Yeah, let's go help those guys out".

 

Remember this simple fact: The Israelis pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 and the Lebanese government responded by enabling Hezbollah to amass their forces near the Israeli border.

 

Lebanon has a decision to make: They can either join the moderate states who may not like Israel, but don't want to wipe them off the face of the earth or they can join the terrorist states. If they want to take the former route and be free of Syria's strangehold, they have to rid their country of Hezbollah. That would give them and Israel a common enemy and the chance to work together for peace. It would also potentially give them America's financial and military support.

[Rex Kickass]

Lebanon has had its current government since last year. It was, previous to that, chiefly run by Syrian placed stooges. There had been movements to demilitarize Hezbollah in the state since the Syrians left last year, but with any nascent democracy, its power to do so was somewhat weak. The problem lies with communities of Druse and Christians squaring off against a large Shiite population.

 

Lebanon has been in this place before, when Israel invaded in 1982, they were greeted as liberators. That changed fairly quickly.

[NorthSideSox72]

when Israel invaded in 1982, they were greeted as liberators. That changed fairly quickly.

 

That sounds so familiar... like something similar happened recently... I can't quite put my finger on it...

 

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Remember this simple fact: The Israelis pulled out of Lebanon in 2000 and the Lebanese government responded by enabling Hezbollah to amass their forces near the Israeli border.

 

Lebanon has a decision to make: They can either join the moderate states who may not like Israel, but don't want to wipe them off the face of the earth or they can join the terrorist states. If they want to take the former route and be free of Syria's strangehold, they have to rid their country of Hezbollah. That would give them and Israel a common enemy and the chance to work together for peace. It would also potentially give them America's financial and military support.

That's a fine thing to write while sitting here in the U.S. watching the mess. But I'd say that the 500,000 refugees fleeing the Israeli air strikes in Lebanon are probably going to have a slightly different opinion. Israel destroyed our country? Why not support the only force in the country capable of inflicting some damage on Israel.

[Cknolls]

How long has the U.N. been in Lebanon now? And what have they done?

[NorthSideSox72]

How long has the U.N. been in Lebanon now? And what have they done?

I don't believe the UN has had a material presence there, like an actual peacekeeping force, in some time.

[Balta1701]

I don't believe the UN has had a material presence there, like an actual peacekeeping force, in some time.

Actually there are something like 2000 UN people in Lebanon. UNIFIL. Its main tasks have been things like clearing landmines and providing humanitarian assistance in the border region.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually there are something like 2000 UN people in Lebanon. UNIFIL. Its main tasks have been things like clearing landmines and providing humanitarian assistance in the border region.

So no peacekeeping force. No force of governmental stability. Nothing save for humanitarian assistance.

 

That's what I thought.

[WCSox]

That's a fine thing to write while sitting here in the U.S. watching the mess.

 

And it's the truth, whether the 500,000 refugees want to ackowledge it or not. I'm sure that the Lebanese are pissed as hell at Israel, and they have the right to be. But they should be even more pissed at their own government for harboring the terrorist army that provoked the attack in the first place.

[StrangeSox]

And it's the truth, whether the 500,000 refugees want to ackowledge it or not. I'm sure that the Lebanese are pissed as hell at Israel, and they have the right to be. But they should be even more pissed at their own government for harboring the terrorist army that provoked the attack in the first place.

 

no, its not the truth. As pointed out above, Lebanon has only been its own government for about a year, and they are weak. they do not have the power to remove Hezbollah at will. But they have made strides towards disarming hezbollah that even a year ago would have been unthinkable.

[WCSox]

no, its not the truth. As pointed out above, Lebanon has only been its own government for about a year, and they are weak. they do not have the power to remove Hezbollah at will. But they have made strides towards disarming hezbollah that even a year ago would have been unthinkable.

 

Um, yes it is the truth.

 

Agreed that the Lebanese army can't deal with Hezbollah itself (duh), which is why they need to work with a more powerful military. The U.N. would be ideal from a political perspective. Working with the Israelis behind the scenes would also be helpful.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, did Israel make that offer before or after they started bombing the spiff out of Beirut?

[WCSox]

Well, did Israel make that offer before or after they started bombing the spiff out of Beirut?

 

So, it's Israel's responsibility to keep terrorists out of neighboring nations?

[Gregory Pratt]

I can not believe that there are people who believe that Israel has a right to demolish Lebanon for what a terrorist group does. And the God damn of it is that these are the same people that will tell you how much they value human life, "human dignity" and things of that nature (unless it involves torture).

[Rex Kickass]

So, it's Israel's responsibility to keep terrorists out of neighboring nations?

 

No more so than it is a government's responsibility to disarm an unregulated militia five years before being elected.

[WCSox]

No more so than it is a government's responsibility to disarm an unregulated militia five years before being elected.

 

Didn't the UN mandate that Hezbollah disarm after Israel pulled out six years ago? Great job of enforcing that, guys. Sadly, that's typical of the UN these days.

 

Did you see Lebanon's PM on Larry King last night? According to him, Hezbollah is merely a "resistance group", while the Israelis are "occupiers." That was a great opportunity for him to call out both sides and ask the international community to pressure both sides for peace (and possibly ridding his country of Hezbollah). Instead, he chose to blame Israel, despite the fact that his own country is harboring a terrorist army.

Edited July 21, 2006 by WCSox

[southsideirish71]

Given that the Israeli bombings have targeted the Lebanese army just as much as they've targeted Hezbollah, this is simply not going to happen. Not a chance in Hell. You want someone other than the Israelis to work to dismantle Hezbollah, your ONLY option is going to be some sort of international force. There's just no one else.

 

Remember this simple fact; bombing people does not make them like you. Israeli jets bombing the Hell out of Lebanon don't make the Lebanese army go "Yeah, let's go help those guys out".

 

 

International Forces have worked so well previously in other parts of the world.

[WCSox]

International Forces have worked so well previously in other parts of the world.

 

Agreed, but it would be even worse for the U.S. military to get directly involved in this.

 

This is a great time for the U.N. to show that it's still capable of something more than delivering food and medicine.

[Balta1701]

Didn't the UN mandate that Hezbollah disarm after Israel pulled out six years ago? Great job of enforcing that, guys. Sadly, that's typical of the UN these days.

 

Did you see Lebanon's PM on Larry King last night? According to him, Hezbollah is merely a "resistance group", while the Israelis are "occupiers." That was a great opportunity for him to call out both sides and ask the international community to pressure both sides for peace (and possibly ridding his country of Hezbollah). Instead, he chose to blame Israel, despite the fact that his own country is harboring a terrorist army.

Thanks to the elections though, Hezbollah is a major part of the government in that country. They also provided some non-trivial amount of the country's public services. At some level, doesn't that fact wind up almost requiring him to take their side, because without their support, his government may very well fall?

 

And once again, this just proves my point; you can't bomb people enough to make them like you.

 

Agreed, but it would be even worse for the U.S. military to get directly involved in this.

 

This is a great time for the U.N. to show that it's still capable of something more than delivering food and medicine.

The only way a U.N. force would work is if the U.N. force went in with teeth. Literally tens of thousands of soldiers, with heavy equipment, armor, etc., and a direct mandate to force Hezbollah to disarm. Thus far, there's been no where near a large enough U.N. presence in that country to even make a dent in Hezbollah's arms supply. The U.N. literally would have to go in as if it were going to war, because that's what it would be if it wanted to do an effective job.

[NorthSideSox72]

The only way a U.N. force would work is if the U.N. force went in with teeth. Literally tens of thousands of soldiers, with heavy equipment, armor, etc., and a direct mandate to force Hezbollah to disarm. Thus far, there's been no where near a large enough U.N. presence in that country to even make a dent in Hezbollah's arms supply. The U.N. literally would have to go in as if it were going to war, because that's what it would be if it wanted to do an effective job.

 

I think this is a very important point. UN peacekeeping will only work in HUGE force - like, UN comes in like gangbusters, takes control of Lebanon, and polices it for a long time. And as Balta says, that would take thousands or tens of thousands of troops. Anything half ass, and its pointless.

[WCSox]

Thanks to the elections though, Hezbollah is a major part of the government in that country. They also provided some non-trivial amount of the country's public services. At some level, doesn't that fact wind up almost requiring him to take their side, because without their support, his government may very well fall?

 

Hezbollah needs to be outlawed as a political party and driven out of the country. Of course, that would require a major government shake-up, but it's necessary in the long run. Like I said before, the Lebanese have an important decision to make and, unfortunately, the PM's comments last night indicate that they're going to make the wrong one.

 

And once again, this just proves my point; you can't bomb people enough to make them like you.

 

Nor can you harbor and enable a terrorist militia and expect to live in peace.

 

The only way a U.N. force would work is if the U.N. force went in with teeth. Literally tens of thousands of soldiers, with heavy equipment, armor, etc., and a direct mandate to force Hezbollah to disarm. Thus far, there's been no where near a large enough U.N. presence in that country to even make a dent in Hezbollah's arms supply. The U.N. literally would have to go in as if it were going to war, because that's what it would be if it wanted to do an effective job.

 

There needs to be some sort of multilateral show of force to drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon. The U.N. can supply peace-keeping troops and the member nations can supply the necessary additional forces.

[southsideirish71]

Thanks to the elections though, Hezbollah is a major part of the government in that country. They also provided some non-trivial amount of the country's public services. At some level, doesn't that fact wind up almost requiring him to take their side, because without their support, his government may very well fall?

 

And once again, this just proves my point; you can't bomb people enough to make them like you.

The only way a U.N. force would work is if the U.N. force went in with teeth. Literally tens of thousands of soldiers, with heavy equipment, armor, etc., and a direct mandate to force Hezbollah to disarm. Thus far, there's been no where near a large enough U.N. presence in that country to even make a dent in Hezbollah's arms supply. The U.N. literally would have to go in as if it were going to war, because that's what it would be if it wanted to do an effective job.

 

 

The only way the middle east problem gets fixed either two ways. The arabs realize that Israel will exist and will be there and gets used to it. Or we pack up all the jews and move them somewhere else. Thats pretty much about it. The goofy terrorists that makeup Hezbollah or Hamas dont want a Palestinian state. They want the jews out, and then Israel to become Palestine. How else do you explain over and over that Hezbollah is lobbing missles over for years. You have a group of people that will always want to drive the jews into the sea. No matter what you say thats pretty much a big feeling over in the middle east.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've brought this up before, but I think it again bears mentioning...

 

In late 2001, Saudi Arabia, after conferring with nations of the Arab League, made a simple offer to Israel - give back the lands taken in the wars of 1968 and 1973 (Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, part of the Sinai I think, and some other areas), for the Palestinians to occupy, and all nations of the Arab League will recognize your existence AND open up to economic relations.

 

Now, obviously, the underlying issues are much more complex. But the offer appeared genuine, and if all those nations acknowledged Israel, then things would at least have a framework for dramatic improvement.

 

Israel turned it down.

Edited July 21, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Balta1701]

Israel turned it down.

Neither side is giving up Jerusalem. Aside from the fact that Arafat wanted to be a wartime leader and not a peacetime leader, there's your big dividing line. The Israelis will not give up the Western Wall. The Islamic countries will not be interested in peace without controlling Jerusalem either.

 

And as far as I know, Israel has given up all of its territory within the Sinai. The Camp David Accords with Carter pulled that one off.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

Didn't the UN mandate that Hezbollah disarm after Israel pulled out six years ago? Great job of enforcing that, guys. Sadly, that's typical of the UN these days.

 

Did you see Lebanon's PM on Larry King last night? According to him, Hezbollah is merely a "resistance group", while the Israelis are "occupiers." That was a great opportunity for him to call out both sides and ask the international community to pressure both sides for peace (and possibly ridding his country of Hezbollah). Instead, he chose to blame Israel, despite the fact that his own country is harboring a terrorist army.

 

Israel spent 18 years occupying Southern Lebanon. There's a bit of history there.

 

BTW: You keep insinuating that there is continuity between the Lebanese government of 2000 and the Lebanese government of 2006. Maybe you missed the Cedar Revolution last year that up until last week was held up as a sign of progress in our goal to "spread democracy" across the region.

 

International Forces have worked so well previously in other parts of the world.

 

They did quite well in Bosnia, thanks.